Lo g a n , C h e r i, Ku ri e n , Anis h , F li n t, D e b bi e a n d Alla n , Si m o n
( 2 0 0 7 ) Dis t ri b u t e d e-l e a r n i n g i n a r t , d e si g n , m e d i a. H i g h e r
E d u c a ti o n Ac a d e m y: Ar t/D e si g n / M e d i a S u bj e c t C e n t r e , Lo n d o n ,
UK.
Do w n l o a d e d fr o m : h t t p ://i n si g h t . c u m b r i a . a c . u k /i d/ e p ri n t/ 5 5 7 /
U s a g e o f a n y i t e m s f r o m t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f C u m b r i a’ s i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p o s i t o r y ‘I n s i g h t ’ m u s t c o n f o r m t o t h e f o l l o w i n g f a i r u s a g e g u i d e l i n e s .
Any it e m a n d it s a s s o ci a t e d m e t a d a t a h el d i n t h e U niv e r si ty of C u m b r i a ’s in s ti t u ti o n al r e p o si t o r y I n si g h t ( u nl e s s s t a t e d o t h e r wi s e o n t h e m e t a d a t a r e c o r d ) m a y b e c o pi e d , di s pl ay e d o r p e rf o r m e d , a n d s t o r e d i n li n e wi t h t h e JIS C f ai r d e a li n g g ui d eli n e s ( av ail a bl e
h e r e) fo r e d u c a t i o n al a n d n o t-fo r-p r ofi t a c tiviti e s p r o v i d e d t h a t
• t h e a u t h o r s , ti tl e a n d full bi blio g r a p h i c d e t ail s of t h e it e m a r e ci t e d cl e a rly w h e n a n y p a r t
of t h e w o r k is r ef e r r e d t o v e r b a lly o r i n t h e w ri t t e n fo r m
• a h y p e rli n k/ U RL t o t h e o ri gi n al I n si g h t r e c o r d of t h a t it e m is i n cl u d e d i n a n y ci t a ti o n s of t h e w o r k
• t h e c o n t e n t is n o t c h a n g e d i n a n y w a y
• all fil e s r e q ui r e d fo r u s a g e of t h e it e m a r e k e p t t o g e t h e r wi t h t h e m a i n it e m fil e. Yo u m a y n o t
• s ell a n y p a r t of a n it e m
• r e f e r t o a n y p a r t of a n it e m wi t h o u t ci t a ti o n
• a m e n d a n y it e m o r c o n t e x t u ali s e it i n a w a y t h a t will i m p u g n t h e c r e a t o r ’s r e p u t a t i o n
• r e m ov e o r a l t e r t h e c o py ri g h t s t a t e m e n t o n a n it e m . T h e full p oli cy c a n b e fo u n d h e r e.
Alt e r n a t iv ely c o n t a c t t h e U niv e r si t y of C u m b ri a R e p o si t o ry E di t o r b y e m a ili n g
Distributed e-learning in Art, Design, Media: an investigation into current practice
Research commissioned by the Art Design Media Subject Centre – Higher Education Academy (ADM-HEA)
Research Team: Cheri Logan: Cumbria Institute of the Arts
Simon Allan: Cumbria Institute of the Arts Anish Kurien: Cumbria Institute of the Arts Debbie Flint: ADM-HEA
INDEX
1. Executive summary
2. Introduction to the research context and review of relevant literature
3. Research methods
4. Findings from survey research
5. Case study summaries and findings
6. Findings from Focus Group Research
7. Conclusions and recommendations
8. References
1. Executive summary
Context of the Research
This report describes the outcomes of a national inquiry into distributed e-learning in Art, Design and Media higher education. The research aimed to provide a picture of the current use of virtual learning environments and other learning and teaching technologies in these subject areas. The findings of the project were reviewed in the light of current literature, and the report provides development-oriented advice that aims to benefit stakeholders in these specialist subject areas.
Findings
Three kinds of findings contributed to the project. Detailed survey evidence describes current and extensive use of learning technologies and levels of user satisfaction; case studies provide in-depth accounts of practical and pedagogical issues involved in introducing e-learning into course programmes; and focus group findings give rich, qualitative accounts of real-life learning and teaching, including the student experience. The project’s evidence provides a picture of the diverse and innovative use currently being made of e-learning across art, design and media disciplines.
Conclusions and recommendations
These relate to three main themes:
Change potential: e-learning has the potential to change key processes, understandings and activities associated with art, design and media disciplines. This may lead to new definitions of intelligent practice and to the loss of traditional areas of competence. One issue of concern is the potential for the downgrading of the kind of learning that comes through making and an alteration of focus from ‘process’ to ‘product’. However, new ways of deploying specialist capabilities are emerging, and we are beginning to identify the new sets of skills that are required.
Specialist needs and opportunities: many traditional art, design and media activities are now being pursued in a digital forum; however, the ‘matching’ of new technologies to subject-specific needs is uneven, with some disciplines better served than others and further development required. Core learning technologies are increasingly integrated into established teaching areas, although at times technological incompatibilities still provide barriers to e-learning. Contact with professional contexts is a key use of ICT, improving student employability.
2. Introduction to the research context and review of relevant literature
Context
The project was commissioned by the Higher Education Academy Subject Centre for Art, Design and Media, and involved a national inquiry into distributed e-learning. For the purposes of the project and in this report a simple definition of e-learning was adopted, that is -
‘Learning facilitated and supported by the use of information and communications technology.’ (JISC, 2004, Effective Practice with e-Learning).
This definition supports the point made elsewhere that “e-Learning is fundamentally about learning and not about technology. Strategic development of e-learning should be based on the needs and demands of learners and the quality of their educational experience.” (Joint SFEFC/SHEFC e-Learning Group, 2003); this focus on the learning experience was a key value in the research.
The project was intended to contribute to the identification of good practice in the development and use of virtual learning environments (VLE’s) and in the use of learning and teaching technologies in art, design and media. Although the approach was one committed to allowing the views, values and meanings of respondents to emerge in the course of the inquiry, it had some broad outcomes in mind. The specific aims of the project were to:
• enhance the learning experience in art, design and media through an investigation of the potential of new technologies
• consider the ways in which IT allows for enhancement of the spaces in which learning occurs
• investigate the development of virtual learning environments and the potential offered by digital formats for interactive and distributed learning activities
• provide development-oriented advice based on research findings that can benefit all stakeholders in the subject areas of art, design, media, history of art and history of design in higher education
As this report indicates, most of these aims have been met at least in some degree.
The research rationale was based on a perspective that is relatively new in education; this involves the idea of ‘distributed learning’, or that knowledge is ‘distributed’ and shared across contexts, tools, persons and resources. It is very different from more traditional views that see knowledge as existing in isolation and out of context (e.g. in someone’s ‘head’, or formally written down in a book). In other words, it involves ideas about learning that have been called ‘social’ and ‘situated’, so thinking about knowledge as constructed ‘in situ’ is the best way of considering this idea. This perspective on learning is a good match for practice-oriented areas like art, design and media which have a long tradition of creating knowledge and learning ‘in situ’, for example in hands-on situations in workshops and studios. In the contemporary context there is the potential of new technologies to expand the resources, tools and environments (or ‘situations’) in and through which learning occurs. The interactions between learners and new technologies are significant in this regard, as are the relationships built within e-learning contexts – for example, between learners and their tools and between members of similar or diverse learning communities. The potential for faster circulation of information through communication technologies is another feature of our distributed knowledge environment, bringing its own advantages and disadvantages.
clear that the process of transferring learning activities to digital forums could offer particular challenges to this sector.
Insights from the literature
Theories of learning and knowledge that are in themselves complex tend to be even more demanding when we attempt to consider their relevance to the field of e-learning or technology assisted learning. Discussions in the available literature help to clarify some of the issues that we need to bear in mind and although extensive literature reviewing will not be attempted here, it worth mentioning some texts that provided insights of relevance. These will be considered under five headings:
• Theories and models of learning and ICT • Collaboration
• Teachers and Learners: views, needs and attitudes to e-learning • The impact of ICT on specialist skills and processes
• Theories and models of learning and ICT
As yet, models of e-learning itself are still in development. However, some theorists have considered how technology can be used to enhance learning – for example, by achieving better learning outcomes, enabling more effective assessment and supporting efficient access to learning environments and resources. Mayes and de Freitas (2004) have conducted a valuable review of existing theories that offers a framework for understanding e-learning and attempts to map theory to pedagogical practice. A key aspect of pedagogy that they identify is the alignment principle in educational design, (Biggs, 1999), which they regard as crucial in securing coherent design for e-learning activities and approaches. This theory of ‘constructive alignment’ proposes consistency in the curriculum taught, the teaching methods used, the choice of learning environment and the assessment procedures adopted. This perspective promotes principled questioning of our
underlying assumptions about learning, which in the contemporary context will include questioning and uncovering implicit assumptions about the role of technology. It will also include a critical focus on the ability of diverse technologies to aid learners in achieving specified learning outcomes.
In discussing ‘constructive alignment’ of learning and teaching activities, Mayes and de Freitas (op. cit.) note that the adoption of a theory of learning is central to good pedagogical design. They examine the main perspectives on learning derived from psychological theory, and consider how e-learning might be conceived of from these approaches. While most contemporary debates about learning centre on the differences between the cognitive and situative perspectives, another view – the associationist/empiricist - was extremely influential in earlier forms of computer training within organizations. The pedagogy derived from this, known as instructional systems design, is based on the learner undertaking tasks in sequences of increasing complexity so that the teaching of
knowledge and skills is ‘from the bottom up’ (op. cit., p.8). This approach has been sidelined by the recent prevalence of constructivist thinking, but the authors point out that it is still influential –
‘Much of what is termed e-learning is still based in the training departments of organisations within a training philosophy that is traditional instructional design …[which] consists of principles that are widely accepted within the organisational training culture.” (op. cit., p. 14)
The cognitive perspective envisages learning as achieving understanding and has a strong focus on conceptual development. However, mainstream cognitive approaches to learning have
which often tends to adopt an approach based on providing similar ‘explanations’ albeit in an enhanced, multimedia format -
‘… the presentation of subject matter using multimedia is based on a discredited idea – that more vivid and naturalistic representations of knowledge would lead to better learning – a misconception responsible for much of the disillusionment that resulted from computer based learning in the 1980’s and 90’s’ (ibid.)
This raises the problem of how to bring new knowledge to learners, and the research in this field indicates that it must be built on the foundations of already existing frameworks, though problem solving activity and feedback. Mayes and de Freitas describe how, in a constructivist view of learning, activities that build understanding have two main features. They comprise:
Interactions with material systems and concepts in the domain
Interactions in which learners discuss their developing understanding and competence
In terms of fulfilling these precepts, the characteristic pedagogies associated with many fields of art, design and media appear to provide a good match; what immediately comes to mind is both the materiality of studio/workshop practice and the specialist discourses in use in these subject communities (see Logan, 2007). Such attributes are not necessarily a ‘given’ of all art, design and media learning, but are likely to exist in domains which (whether practically or theoretically
oriented) are predicated upon interactions with material cultures and their related conceptual frameworks.
Other constructivist ideas enable us to consider how e-learning works; for example, rather than giving us the individual learner as the unit of analysis, activity theory leads us to see learning as an activity system. It therefore involves consideration of the connections between participants and purpose, and the mediation of this by tools, which make activity possible. Tools can be both physical (networks, books, software) and cognitive (concepts, language memory) and they can both enable and constrain activity. In this perspective learning is ‘distributed’, with thought and intelligence being stretched across the larger structures of activity. Learners need support (or ‘scaffolding’) as they embark upon areas of activity in which they as yet lack competence. If web-based learning environments are in use, for example, tutors will need to be able to support
students by their pedagogical use and monitoring of email, management of discussion forums and deployment of synchronous communication tools. The idea that e-learning will release teachers from responsibility for their students’ learning is misconceived when considered from this
perspective; the high resource demands involved in making pedagogically-informed arrangements for e-learning also need to be recognized.
The third approach to learning scrutinized by Mayes and de Freitas is the situative perspective. This characterizes learning as ‘social practice’ with an emphasis on the development of disciplinary practices of discourse and representation, collaborative learning outcomes and the development of learning relationships with peers. The writers bring out two aspects that are of particular relevance to the current research – the embedding of learning within the immediate social context of the educational setting and the opportunities that situated approaches acknowledge for learners to become participants in wider ‘communities of practice.’ In the vocationally-referenced areas that constitute much of the art, design and media sector both of these opportunities are significant, with learners centred on their course programmes but oriented towards professional destinations. It is therefore useful to hear of innovations with ICT informed by this approach, and Mayes and de Freitas describe some of these. They describe Goodyear’s (2002) account of networked learning as involving knowledge-sharing and a phased learning cycle. The various phases of this cycle cover externalization (of tacit knowledge), sharing, discussion, refinement and then internalization of understanding, with online tasks designed to promote each aspect. Goodyear has also
developed practical applications informed by both constructivist and situative principles; the CSALT networked learning model is an outcome with a strong focus on building the communities of
Their review of the implications of these varied learning theories allows Mayes and de Freitas to conclude that most implementations of e-learning will include blended elements from all three approaches i.e. learning as behaviour, as the construction of knowledge and meaning and as social practice.
A review of constructivist approaches to conditions for learning is undertaken by Land and Hannafin (2000) in the light of new technological innovations. However they do not take a narrow theoretical view, and their main argument is that we give full consideration to the implications of all our ideas about learning in attempting to design learning environments. Although they are not only concerned with VLE’s, their ideas obviously have implications for these. The key point made is that we need to find ways to align pedagogies, psychologies, technology and culture in designing learning environments, in a process of ‘grounded design’(op. cit, p.3). The authors refer to the way that technological input ‘can control the pace and chunking of information’ (p.4), enabling more flexible approaches to learning. They conclude that in practice most pedagogical arrangements involve a blend of learning approaches, noting that constructivist learning environments also draw on theories of situated cognition. An element of the situated approach that they consider
particularly useful is the aspiration for ‘authentic contexts’ for learning, which also supports constructivist tenets that privilege ‘personal over canonical perspectives’ on knowledge (op. cit, p 6). It is interesting that the writers’ description of the main functions of technology in such
environments appears to replicate an activity that has traditionally been central to art, design and media learning, that is –
‘Technology enables learners to represent their thinking in concrete ways and to visualise and test the consequences of their reasoning’ (op.cit., p. 15)
The same central concerns preoccupy Barab and Duffy (2000), whose work considers how best to import the ideas derived from situative theories into formal educational environments. This has always been problematic, as some of the most influential theorists in the field have formulated their ideas outside of formal educational settings (see Lave, 2000; Wenger, 1998), with which they sometimes seem to offer a poor fit. Barab and Duffy take up the situated theory relating to communities of practice and modify it for formal education into the concept of ‘practice fields’. These are not the learners’ destined communities of practice (such as television production, graphic design and so on in the context of art, design and media) but a learning environment in which they can ‘rehearse’ participation as they actively engage in domain–related practices.
Leaving aside the theoretical problems that this might involve for committed situative theorists (and we are perhaps justified in doing this as there is rather more coherence in art, design and media higher education between practice communities and ‘practice fields’ as defined here than
elsewhere; see Logan, 2006), this account provides details of one practical attempt to provide a technology-assisted learning environment replicating practice fields. This is the Special Multimedia Arenas for Refining Thinking (SMART) project, and a key feature is that it positions learners as community members rather than isolated participants. The lack of links to external professional communities within the programme is seen as a weakness of the project, but it makes some significant progress in designing technology assisted learning based on the principles of authentic activity and learner engagement in problem solving tasks.
The work of Laurillard (1993) on e-learning has been extremely influential in British higher education in recent years. Adopting a constructivist perspective, Laurillard considers how to reconfigure university teaching for a contemporary context of mass higher education, and how technologies can help us to maintain the best of current practices in this situation. She reflects on the role of technologies in assisting us to develop and maintain the ‘conversational framework’ with learners that can assure inclusion of essential aspects of learning, such as apprehending,
exploring, discussing, experimenting, articulating (this is not Laurillard’s full list). A great deal of this text involves precise discussion of the potential of different types of learning technologies, and directs university teachers towards the media that will foster specific learning outcomes that they may have in mind. In a situation of rapid change it is unsurprising that many have adopted
needed to create dialogic learning environments in universities and turn them into ‘learning organizations’ (op. cit, p. 221).
Despite Laurillard’s stated aim of aligning cognitive and situated standpoints on learning, there are some features of her approach that sit less well with situative views. For example her view of university learning as involving ‘the process of abstraction’ (p. 19) and her characterization of academic knowledge as decontextualized informs her approach to ‘mediated learning’ (p. 4), in which undergraduates do not learn about the world directly but about others’ descriptions of the world. This mediation forms the substance of the dialogic relationship that contributes to the
‘conversational framework’ for learning, which thus becomes a ‘second order’ (p. 21) experience of the world. Laurillard’s ideas on e-learning are better matched with some areas of art, design and media education than others; the second order experience involved in the ‘conversational
framework’ challenges a key expectation in some practice-based activities that students’ will enjoy extensive and personal ‘first-order’ engagement with learning, notably through making. However, both here and in fields such as media and cultural studies and art and design history, the analysis of descriptions and representations of the world made by others is a fundamental activity.
The examples cited by Laurillard are drawn from other fields, with no instances from art, design or media courses, which is unsurprising as empirical evidence on e-learning in general is still
emergent rather than widely disseminated. However, Laurillard does say in discussing ‘productive’ IT media that such courses have always found creative channels through which to demonstrate learning, although it is unclear whether she regards these as ‘products’ of learning or means of learning. One significant conclusion that she draws is that –
‘… improvements in university teaching are more likely to be achieved through ‘multiple media’ appropriately balanced for their pedagogic value, then through reliance on any one learning technology.’ (op. cit., p. 174)
She thus argues for the introduction of ‘balanced media’ (p. 175) into higher education contexts, a precept that has been supported by recent recognition of the benefits of ‘blended’ learning.
• Collaboration
The potential of ICT to improve collaborative learning in design and technology education is considered by McCormick (2004), who reviews the current research to find out what has emerged on the ability of ICT to improve achievement in learning. This is a comprehensive international review with regard to design and technology education, so most of this section will be devoted to describing its results. McCormick begins by saying that evidence on the potential of ICT to make learning more effective is mixed in general, and almost entirely unproven in design and technology education. His view is that in order to realize the potential of ICT we need to pay more attention to learning issues, so he explores the available literature on a number of themes. The first relates to evidence on improved achievement, and here the problem of under-use of technologies is
highlighted. The research that McCormick reviews is based on large scale studies in the USA , which highlight the lack of use of computers, even those in the classroom context. In design and technology education CAM (Computer Aided Manufacture) and CAD (Computer Aided Design) were found to be the most usual uses, other than general purpose use (i.e. non-design, but word processing, recording work via digital camera, internet searching and so on) There is little current evidence of ICT extending the capabilities of students, although there is recognition in the literature of its transformative potential; in particular electronic multimedia seem to hold the promise of both transforming the subject and the means of studying it.
creating collaborative environments is reported to be a major development in professional design. The higher education context is well covered in the research literature that describes what
universities are doing to aid collaboration for students with design profession destinations, as this was a key focus for research from the 1990’s. McCormick cites Wojtowics (1995); Maher, Simoff and Cicognani (2000); Turner and Cross (2000) and Garner (2001) amongst others and notes that there are also attempts being made to develop a good theory of collaborative design.
A third field of research that the literature describes is that of collaboration and learning, with different stances on this deriving from different views of learning. A (Piagetian) constructivist account would focus on individual knowledge construction, versus the joint creation of knowledge that would be privileged in social constructivist or situated accounts. McCormick highlights Rogoff’s (1990) description of ‘intersubjectivity’ as a central concept in collaboration and her view of the three elements that create this - shared problem space, shared objects, shared or distributed cognition. Rogoff and others (see Maher et al. op. cit) perceive that what emerges is more than the sum of the thinking of those involved. Drawing on situated approaches, this field also emphasises the cultural authenticity of learning, the tools and physical conditions involved and the effect on thinking of the structures provided by tools. The significance of appropriate introduction of ICT is emphasized when we recognize that tools, including software, will frame the way a subject considers the design space; when this incorporates a collaborative element it is likely that it will add another dimension to student thinking. The processes involved in learning will also be
significant, whether individually or socially oriented, and there are implications for assessment – ‘… measuring individual learning is somewhat problematic in the collaborative context.’ (McCormick, ibid., p.165). Where collaboration is sought there will be the need for the task to enable or even require collaborative activity, and McCormick notes that tasks are often cooperative without being collaborative; true collaboration requires shared thinking, and there must be negotiation at the interface between parts of the task for collaboration to be involved.
McCormick points in conclusion to several issues that we need to recognize if we are to realize the potential of ICT. Firstly, it is clear that in some cases ICT adds very little to learning; it is also clear that we don’t yet have pedagogic techniques for the new situations that collaborative technologies offer us, and that our network technologies are still not sufficiently easy to use and robust enough to guarantee smooth-running lessons enough of the time. We also need to consider how to make pedagogic interventions without intruding into the tasks of designing and making, and how to assess joint work in a system traditionally favouring individual assessment. Teachers also need to be flexible and be prepared to meet new challenges; for example, university students in one study (Garner and Hodgson, 2002) found video conferencing ineffective for joint designing, but were happy to use mobile phones to supplement meetings, individual CAD working and file sharing.
A different kind of collaboration is explored in Salomon, Perkins and Globerson’s (1991) paper on the potential of ICT and human subjects to become ‘partners in cognition’ in ‘mind-machine collaborations’. This discussion describes the way in which computer tools have the potential to extend the user’s intellectual performance, but it depends on not only what students are interacting with but also how they do it. The paper’s conclusions rest on a view of knowledge as distributed, and the authors note that the idea of mind-machine partnerships challenges our traditional notions about human ability, which we usually regard as a property of the individual and their mind.
However,
‘… once we couple intelligent technologies with a person’s ability, the emphasis might shift to examining the performance of the joint system … the system, not the individual alone, carries out the intellectual task.” (op. cit. p. 5)
‘In our eagerness to produce ever more intelligent tools, we might inadvertently deskill skills we would want to retain.’ (op. cit., p. 7)
There is, however, an inevitability to this, for ‘If you have a technology … you are likely to use it.’ (ibid.). Moreover, new technologies redefine old activities and new ones emerge that give new roles to the human intellect. The paper therefore predicts that the impact of ICT on education will be profound, changing its whole culture. However, it is argued that it is not the technology alone that has the potential to affect minds, but a combination of ‘… technology, activity, goal, setting, teacher’s role, culture – exerting their combined effect.’ The paper concludes that the benefits that technologies may provide to human thinking will only emerge through their purposive use, by being cultivated –
‘… through the appropriate design of technologies and their cultural surrounds.’(op. cit., p. 8)
- and warns that we may need to rethink what we mean by human intelligence in the future.
• Teachers views, needs and attitudes to e-learning
It had been hoped to include research literature reflecting the views of learners in this section, but it proved difficult to access empirically based research on this issue; only one article was found and it was based in a cultural context that appeared to be so removed from the British one that it shed little light on the concerns of this project. The research sources drawn on here will therefore clarify what we know about the views of e-learning held by teachers. Shaw, R. et al. (2002), address the ways in which staff development can take account of the specialist context and traditions of learning and teaching in art, design and related disciplines – ‘The thrust of the tradition is to celebrate individuality and creativity with a considerable emphasis on practice-based learning’ (p. 1) and overcome obstacles to ICT for lecturer use. The authors use empirical evidence from a survey of tutors in Scottish art schools to back up their points, and are able to provide pragmatic recommendations based on the findings. They argue that the distinctiveness of the domain
involves a number of factors militating against ready acceptance and use of technology, including –
tutors’ overall unease about the role of computers in art, design and related fields the employment of large numbers of part time staff
lack of computers in studios and workplaces
historic underinvestment in technologies such as data projectors in seminar and lecture rooms
absence of an appropriate, co-ordinated and intensive programme of staff development
The paper also lays down a number of principles for staff development in relation to ICT use for the subject context. For example, it is recommended that staff development programmes focus on: peer coaching, which makes learning more relevant to the environment in which individuals operate; modelling, enabling lecturers to observe expert performance; providing reward and recognition for successful adoption of best practice; sustaining staff development through ongoing and systematic training; highlighting the needs of Mac users, which are often neglected; linking of technology and educational objectives; introducing flexible schedules to enable staff to practise what they have learned. The paper also makes recommendations for changes in institute
infrastructures that are needed to support the above – e.g. personal/sole use of computer for each staff member, appropriate equipment for lecture theatres, seminar rooms and studios etc.
tools and vocabulary … changing the subject of art, not just the way it can be taught or learned …’ (p.180) as well as ‘displacing time-honoured skills’ (ibid.). Significant changes that they had noted included their perception that draughtsmanship is on the decline, that the emphasis on
collaborative classroom work means an art student’s personal vision may count for less and that students seem to have an altered sense of what they observe – that the act of observation itself appears to be changing. The latter point is elaborated in the paper’s discussion of the way that students are saturated with ‘mediated’ imagery, while teachers tend to prefer engagement with ‘real’ experience. An interesting point about potential cognitive and skills outcomes is made –
‘ … in art and design, the computer shifts the emphasis from the left hemisphere of the brain to the right – i.e. allowing more focus on the message, less on the execution.’ (op. cit., p. 189)
- a situation which suggests that the mode of learning that operates through processes of making might be downgraded in these circumstances. In fact, the opinion is offered that the digital age ‘rewards a different sort of student …’ and that our specialist disciplines will lose the ‘human touch’ that has always characterized them.
• The impact of ICT on specialist skills and processes
There is a growing body of literature that considers the impact of ICT on specialist art, design and media domains. Coyne et al. (2002) reflect the technological change of the last ten years in graphic design in their discussion of the impact of digital drawing, showing how design devices are
sublimated in and act as catalysts for changing the practice, understanding and self-identity of designers. They consider the potential for new technologies to change relationships in the
educational practicum and provide new signifying metaphors generated by the digital environment. The role of drawing in contemporary design curricula is reviewed by Schenk (2005), and she attempts to ascertain what forms of drawing ability are needed today and how this has been influenced by technological change. She derives evidence from interviews she conducted with academics (deans and programme leaders) and with senior design researchers, a high proportion of whom were from fine art backgrounds. Schenk found a substantive reduction in the importance attached to drawing now compared to the mid-1980s, but it was still considered important by two thirds of respondents in her study. The development of newer, art and design related disciplines was found to change the importance of drawing for application and entry to university courses. For applicants to interactive digital media design, product and industrial design programmes less drawing experience was deemed acceptable, with other disciplinary knowledge increasing in importance – for example, maths and computer studies. There also seemed to be more
importance placed by academics on ‘intellectual’ over ‘practical’ skills, and a growing importance afforded to the business and computing aspects of the curriculum.
It was felt by Schenk’s respondents that ICT can support the presentation of ideas for those with weak drawing skills; they recorded that they also felt the need to establish the educational criteria appropriate to the digital environment, as many said their attempts to ban the computer for the ‘idea’ stages of design had to be abandoned. They had reluctantly accepted that student designers need familiarity with use of computers throughout the whole process of design, despite continuing worries that software tended to over-influence the production of visuals and that it was too easy to produce outcomes in a technology-influenced ‘house style’. An important point that emerged was that students now had little access to the kind of designers’ drawings previously seen on industrial placements. There were two aspects to this, though, as students were spending less time on their own drawing as well as having less access to those of professionals. It was felt that this resulted in the limiting of conceptual freedom and that the modelling of ‘process’ was becoming more
3. Research methods
The research was conducted between October 2005 and December 2006, with three phases of data collection involving the use of both quantitative and qualitative means. Different strategies were adopted in the three phases, with the diverse methods contributing characteristic forms of evidence; this was deliberate, as it was anticipated that it would enable triangulation of findings and contribute to establishing their validity.
The first stage of the study involved the design and implementation nationally of an electronic questionnaire which aimed to find out about existing practice in e-learning. The questionnaire was provided to all on the Subject Centre’s existing database of practitioners in art, design and media education. A pilot phase was implemented in October 2005, with feedback from respondents enabling changes to be made that aided ease of response. The administration of the questionnaire was done electronically, but some respondents who contacted the research team were provided with paper copies to complete if they wished. In line with current legislation around data protection, implementation of the questionnaire was handled by subject centre staff rather than the research team; however, electronic responses came directly to the researchers involved. Approximately 1200 people on the database were provided with the questionnaire and a total of 249 responses were received, a good response rate that satisfied the needs of the study. Questions asked in this survey aimed to find out about demographic profiles of respondents; the range of technologies they were familiar with and used (including VLEs); the specialist applications that were most valued and current levels of daily ICT use. More specific questions relating to learning and teaching elicited information on knowledge management; views of learning and e-learning; how ICT was used to support learning and the learning environment. A fuller description of the survey questions will be found in Section 4.
The second phase of the research involved the sponsoring of major innovation projects in different higher education institutions. These involved in-depth case studies of a number of different
learning activities and covered:
• Development and evaluation of a resource for online assessment in media production • Development and evaluation of an online resource for learning in fashion and textiles • A report outlining the impact of introducing specialist IT equipment into graphic design
studio spaces
• An online contextual studies module for level 2 degree students, with a focus on the research skills needed to prepare them for dissertation work
The structured evaluation of these activities was conducted by those directly involved, guided by protocols and reporting mechanisms devised by the research team. Project leaders in the
institutions involved were provided with a Guide to Case Study research (see Appendix 1) and they contributed structured proposals, conducted the research and provided full written reports to
specified deadlines. Section 5 of this document provides edited summaries of the case studies, undertaken by the manager of the project who is the chief author of this report. A deliberate attempt was made to retain the different voices and perspectives of the individual case study authors; the views, opinions and values expressed are those of the individuals involved, testifying to the real-life nature of their experiences. It is intended that the collected case studies will be made available in full in a subsequent publication from the Subject Centre for Art, Design and Media.
needs of the research; please see Appendix 2 for details of the protocols and methods that the research team established.
It was difficult to control the sample of respondents in this phase of the project; despite pre-planning, participants attended mainly on grounds of their availability on the day of the meeting. Although the groups differed in size and structure, the established ‘questioning route’ was adhered to by all three facilitators involved and it was felt that a good range of opinion was offered. Data collection was aided by audio recording the meetings, taking field notes and writing up summaries that included verbatim quotations from respondents. A wide variety of art, design and media disciplines were represented in the discussions and despite this diversity there was frequently a shared focus. Overall, it was felt that key concerns appeared to be replicated across the sites studied, providing triangulation of findings and enabling the data to be assembled under the headings offered in Section 6 of this report.
It has been estimated that, with the inclusion of the tutors and students who took part in the case study activities for the innovation projects, the total number of respondents participating in the research was approximately 500. A great deal of evidence was generated in the course of the project, and electronic archives were maintained by the research team. A number of meetings were held for team discussion of evidence and findings, and these ‘data days’ were found to be very helpful in establishing joint analytical strategies and for debating emerging meanings.
Analysis, results and outcomes
The data collected by the different means outlined above formed the project’s research archive and their analysis forms the basis of this report. In the case of the four innovation projects, the project leaders provided their own evaluative comments as they reported on the activity. The statistical and other data collected by the online survey was analysed in two ways. Firstly, statistics and scaled responses were subjected to electronic analysis and the data displayed in the form of diagrams and charts; these are included in the report. Secondly, these data were reviewed to consider more general themes and issues in the light of the key research questions. The report’s main author has therefore supplied discursive comment that attempts to capture these emergent themes. This comment accompanies the ‘raw’ results obtained by the survey, and where possible opportunities have also been taken to reflect on what some of the wider meanings of these may be.
Compromises, subjectivities and negotiations are a feature of all research activity. Here, for example, the data protection laws meant that it was not feasible to conduct more purposive sampling of survey respondents across the Subject Centre database. Similarly, it was difficult to pre-determine the constitution of focus group participants; the genders, roles and subject
4. Findings from survey research
The findings from the survey research are reported here under a number of broad themes; these relate to the questions asked and the information sought from respondents. Survey information offers itself to various modes of interpretation, and although some clarifying comment is included in each section it is anticipated that readers will often wish to draw their own conclusions from the collected data. The evidence provides a complex picture of interactions with technologies by sector respondents, directing us towards some clear conclusions and also raising many new questions. Some of the issues that require further clarification are illuminated to a degree by the evidence provided in both the case studies and focus group research, described later in this report.
Questions 1 – 5 gave demographic information on survey respondents by:
• Place of work as specialist ADM institute or not • Gender
• Age
• subject area • job description
More respondents worked within institutions that they regarded as ‘specialist’ than otherwise (56% said they did, 44% said not). The majority worked as tutors/lecturers (55%) and the next largest group (19%) were educational managers. Gender and age profiles were obtained in case these proved relevant and may be drawn on further in the analysis.
Questions 6 & 7 were on VLE use:
Blackboard users were the largest group amongst respondents (42% have used this), with the next largest (26%) reporting no experience of a VLE; WebCT and ‘other’ types of VLE had each been used by 24% of respondents. It is important to note that 18% of respondents had experience of a ‘tailor-made’ VLE, the features of which we could not ascertain in the current survey. However, the main commercial providers (who have merged since this survey was conducted) clearly dominated the user experience of respondents, with Blackboard and WebCT having provided the forum for 66% of their prior experience of a VLE.
most/many learning activities well), a rather higher number of respondents (10%) found it ‘of little use’ to them. However, the most satisfied user group was that which had access to a ‘tailor-made’ VLE, 39% of whom could attest that it ‘supported most learning activities well’; this highest
satisfaction category was only selected by 14% of Blackboard users and 10% of WebCT users. However, we need to read this evidence circumspectly and bear in mind that ‘tailor-made’ users represented a numerically small group (36 out of a total of 241 survey respondents).
Respondents were also asked to provide more detail on any ‘other’ VLE, and the following were recorded as having been used:
Moodle
First Class (OU)
WOLF (Wolverhampton Online Learning Framework) Lotus
Virtual Campus NTU VLP
Studynet (University of Hertfordshire’s MLE)
Of the above, ‘Moodle’ had most use, with 15 mentions; 5 respondents specified ‘First Class’, there were 4 recordings of ‘WOLF’, 3 of ‘Lotus’ and a couple each of ‘Virtual Campus’ and ‘NTU’s VLP’, while one respondent mentioned ‘Studynet’. More generic formats were also described, e.g. ‘in-house intranet’, ‘email lists’, ‘created own blogs’, ‘personally designed website’, ‘university portal’ etc.
Questions 8 & 9 asked for information about the kinds of IT equipment that respondents used regularly in learning and teaching situations, and in their everyday lives.
In response to question 8, respondents recorded that in learning and teaching contexts they made high levels of use of the following:
87% used PC’s
84% used data projectors 70% laptop computers
20% of respondents (45 out of 241) replied ‘other’, however, and were asked to specify the nature of these tools. The most commonly recorded use under this category was of the Apple Mac
computer, but respondents also noted their use of interactive whiteboards, digital visualizers, digital cameras and scanners and projectors (both digital and traditional OHP). In terms of mobile
A number of technologies specified in the question about learning and teaching use attracted low response rates, with only 12% using mobile/smart phones for this purpose, 9% using PDA’s (personal digital assistants) and 5% tablet PC’s. A question was specifically asked about the tablet PC because of the potential of its applications in visual environments, and the widespread use of digital drawing tablets in some branches of the design industry; however, it is clear that this is yet to be more fully exploited in learning contexts.
Question 9 asked about more everyday and personal technology use, and some contrasts were evident, indicating the existence of a life/work divide. While slightly more use was made of PC’s and laptops here (89% and 78% of respondents made ‘life and leisure’ use of these), far higher levels of use of mobile technologies were recorded - 76% of respondents used mobile/smart phones and 21% PDA’s. The availability and high level of uptake of mobile technologies and respondents’ familiarity of use with them is evident. Taken with responses to the previous question, however, the data suggest that at the time of the survey users were not yet considering the
Questions 10 & 11: use of ICT and specialist software
Question 10 invited respondents to indicate the ways in which they used ICT in learning and teaching. The most significant areas of use, involving large majorities of respondents, were related to publication of course syllabus material (79% of respondents used ICT for this) and lecture notes (78% of respondents); dissemination of tutor contact details (77%) was another significant feature of ICT use. This high take-up for dissemination and publication purposes was a clear sign that many of the communicative and administrative aspects of learning and teaching in art, design and media were being rendered quicker and easier by new technologies. It is notable, however, that on-screen, downloadable and printable text is the main medium of the interaction between learners and tutors – that is, word-based communication appears to be the focus of these interactions. This is probably the case across all disciplinary domains, but the subject-specific focus of this survey might have led us to expect a somewhat different picture to emerge. However, a sizeable minority of respondents (42%) also noted that they used ICT ‘to support development of learners’ creative practice’; the meaning of this is more difficult to unpack, and can only be considered in the context of the survey data overall. It was also found valuable to triangulate these meanings with the more detailed data derived in the qualitative research activities that formed part of the study, as recorded elsewhere in this report.
interactive teaching online’, but asynchronous communication was used by a much larger group (46%) to ‘conduct online discussion with students’.
As respondents were asked to indicate any ‘other’ activities involving ICT that they undertook, a wider picture emerged. 44 respondents took the opportunity to include accounts of such activities as:
Promotion of reflective discussion among learners via blogs, online discussion forums, journals and other encouragements to reflection
Dissemination of student work and ideas
Information management e.g. providing links to sources for information and research, websites etc. Computer aided design
Administrative tasks including keeping registers and records, diary-updating, report-writing
There was only one instance of a respondent referring to ‘the use of IT for learning object design’ (the formal JISC/HEA description of the process of creating online teaching materials) as against the large numbers referring less self-consciously to the widespread activity of putting existing materials, such as lecture notes, online. Nonetheless, the wide range of activities reported as being undertaken by the respondent group indicates that it is not merely productive channels of
communication but receptive and interactive ones that are currently being exploited through ICT use. The latter are probably those activities which respondents are referring to in noting that they use ICT to support learners’ ‘development of creative practice’, and the diversity of them suggests that they would provide valuable support of the ‘dialogic’ kind that Laurillard (2002) prescribes. Nonetheless, not all art, design and media activity is optimally conducted in a verbal,
‘conversational’ (op.cit.) medium, which appears to be the most accessible mode available to respondents. It was significant that only one response specified the participant’s current ICT use to involve delivery of ‘workshops’ as well as lectures ‘online and asynchronously’.
The specialist software available for art, design and media applications adds a different dimension to the predominantly ‘text-oriented’ capability of more mainstream ICT solutions that are outlined above. However, it is largely derived from professional and industrial art, design and media contexts and we have to be circumspect in equating the use of specialist technologies, however relevant they may appear to disciplinary learning outcomes, with ‘e-learning’. With this in mind, it will be useful to note the wide array of ‘bespoke’ art, design and media software available to support learning activities in higher education. Those applications reported in use by respondents in the survey included:
Adobe - Acrobat/Audition/Go Live/InDesign/Photoshop/Illustrator/Quark Xpress/Freehand CAD embroidery
Course Genie Dreamweaver Flash
Fireworks Final Cut Pro iPhoto
Macromedia Authorware Premiere
Microsoft Office Microsoft Word Microsoft Publisher Microsoft Powerpoint Pebblepad
Quicktime player Rhino
Scotweave
Question 12: time spent using ICT in the working day
This question recorded the large amounts of time that respondents spent in using IT on an average working day, and it was notable that only 4% spent one hour or less in this activity. At the other end of the scale, 24% recorded spending six or more hours daily in tasks that involved IT.
The demographic of respondents is important in considering the data that this question elicited, and it is worth remembering that the sample included not only lecturers, educational managers, ICT managers and learning technologists but a large minority of respondents (21%*) with varied role profiles. These include responsibilities for academic guidance, learning development and student support. This context is important for considering the extremely high levels of time that respondents overall invested in ICT use; 38% reported two to three hours a day being spent in this way, while 34% recorded four to five hours. The daily pattern of working for those involved in art, design and media education is thus one of strong and continuing engagement with IT, with 96% of respondents investing substantial amounts of their working day in this activity. Specifically, 72% of respondents spend between two and five hours daily in this way, with another 24% recording six hours plus. The domination of the working landscape by IT-related activities appears to be a fait accompli, posing questions about the kinds of activities involved and their relationship to learning and teaching. It is clear that redefinitions of key educational activities have already occurred or are currently taking place, and this high investment of respondent time is an important signifier of the widespread nature of such developments.
* Many of the answers under this heading indicate that respondents took the opportunity to note the nature of their subject disciplines, which they clearly felt lay outside the narrower definitions of art, design and media. There were therefore many listings of related topics such as ‘photography’, ‘art history’, ‘multimedia’ and so on. It seems reasonable to assume that these respondents were in ‘academic’ or at least ‘academic-related’ roles, though this is not an assumption that has been adopted in the analysis without explicit comment being made upon it.
Question 13: Archiving and data storage
other forms of data. It is unsurprising, therefore, that respondents reported varied and widespread use of ICT-enabled forms of data storage. The most popular forms were saving on computer hard drive (98% of respondents), USB storage devices (78%) and CD ROMs (76%) - giving
respondents a blend of non-portable and portable means. More minority uses included saving to websites/online briefcases (40%), the ‘older’ technology of floppy discs (29%) and upcoming mobile devices such as iPod and iRiver (25%). One of the issues raised by responses to this question relates to the rapidly changing software and hardware involved, and the importance of ensuring the continuing availability of information in ‘extinct’ ICT formats.
Question 14: the benefits and potential of e-learning
In order to gain data on respondents’ perceptions about the value of e-learning they were asked to rank a number of recognized benefits in order of importance to them. The table is included for more detail, but some clear preferences emerged. The potential of e-learning to ‘extend classroom resources and provide better access to information’ was its most significant perceived benefit for the largest group of respondents, with 46% agreeing on the importance of this. Enhanced flexibility of the learning context was the next most significant aspect, with 32% agreeing on the benefits of learning taking place ‘anytime, anywhere’. Of the categories offered, the ‘support for group
learning’ offered by ICT was the next respondent preference, with 30% agreeing on its importance. The potential for ‘reduction of paperwork’ was in fourth place (29%), with joint fifth place shared between the perceived capability of ICT to ‘make assessment quicker and easier’ (25%) and its ability ‘to attract people who do not participate in conventional learning’ (25%).
Respondents were also offered the opportunity to record ‘other’ perceived benefits; amongst the most prevalent concerns here were: the support offered by ICT for student independence, self-management and ‘ownership’ of learning; enhancement of student employability through familiarity with ICT, including experience of ‘industry-standard’ equipment; improved responsiveness to student learning needs/styles enabled through ICT; ease of access to learning materials; facilitation of communication between learners/teachers and between learners.
Questions 15,16 & 17: ICT & support for critical reflection
Respondents were also asked whether they used ICT to support student reflection, with 52% indicating that they did and 48% saying that they did not use ICT in this way. Those who
responded positively to this question were asked to specify the means in use, and indicated that large and varied range of ICT-supported strategies were in place. Innovative modes of support included blogs; creation of online knowledge bases; use of ICT to facilitate ‘continuous feedback’; e-portfolios and other means of conducting online PDP (Personal Development Planning); online forums; online research journals; keeping of production and research logs; online reflective accounts and discussion boards. The modes reported on were varied, with consensus on the usefulness of blogs and of some form of e-portfolios for PDP activities. There was clear evidence that respondents were using the digital environment to pursue traditional art, design and media activities in a new forum – for example by using ‘online crits’, ‘digital portfolios’, ‘electronic presentations’ of work for assessment and ‘submission of online critical reviews’. Both individual self-reflection and shared reflective discussion with peers and tutors were referred to by
respondents, with the latter facilitated by new communicative opportunities offered by ICT. It is important to remember that despite evidence of take-up of these extensive opportunities, almost half of respondents had yet to exploit them at the time of completing the survey.
Question 18: ICT and support for student learning
Respondents were asked to specify their preferred electronic tools for supporting student learning in art, design and media courses; a choice of eight of the better-known tools was provided for ranking, as well as an option to specify ‘other’ important ones. Respondents showed a clear
(first choice of 23%). ‘Electronic databases’ were a clear second choice (21% of respondents), with third choice ‘online reflective journals’ (16%) although third choice scores were well distributed across all the options provided. ‘Subject-related forums’ that allowed a degree of interactivity in the form of questions and answers were placed fourth by 18% of respondents. Feedback both to students on assignment grading and from students on their perceptions of the learning experience garnered low ratings; feedback from students was placed in fifth and seventh place by 40% of respondents, while ‘online feedback to students on assignments’ was ranked sixth (18% of respondents). Little useful information about the least popular applications was available, with eighth place being shared inconclusively by a number of low-rated tools.
Questions 19 & 20: spaces, resources and the learning environment
These questions about the learning environment enabled links to be established between preferred spaces for learning and the technological access available in these spaces, illuminating the real-life conditions experienced by those participating in the survey. Respondents ranked the physical environments in which learning was promoted in order of perceived importance, with clear preferences emerging for ‘studios’ (ranked first by 52% of respondents) and ‘workshops’ (ranked second by 30%); 31% of respondents, however, gave first ranking to ‘seminar and tutorial rooms’. At the bottom end of respondent preferences came ‘staff offices’, ranked eighth by 54% of them, and ‘specialist technology areas’ (seventh ranking by 29% of respondents). It is likely that the latter description was taken by respondents to refer to sites for specialist technology that were physically separated from ‘dedicated’ course studios, as similar perceptions of their unpopularity have been documented elsewhere (Logan, 2007).
Questions 21 & 22: Preferred approaches to learning and perceptions of technology
The final questions of the survey elicited respondents’ views of learning, and of the role of technology in learning and teaching. Respondents ranked a number of learning approaches by preference, with 54% of them placing as first choice either ‘traditional classroom/studio and workshop based teaching’ (27% voted for this) or this ‘traditional’ mode ‘supplemented by online lecture notes, contact information, course syllabus etc.’(27%). The ‘publishing’ potential of ICT referred to above (under responses to questions 10 & 11) was therefore seen as one of its most significant contributions to learning. However, 42% of respondents had an extended view of the potential of elearning, and ranked this as first in their preferred approaches; this sizeable minority showed preference for ‘traditional’ teaching enhanced by features such as online discussion forums, chatrooms, tools such as interactive whiteboards, online assignment submission and recorded lectures. A clear majority of respondents reacted negatively to the idea of doing away with face to face learning and teaching interactions, with 58% ranking ‘fully virtual/digital delivery’ the lowest of the options provided.
5. Case study summaries and findings
Innovation Project One - ‘Enhancing Textile Practice at London College of Fashion’
Project Leader: Polly Kenny
Introduction and context of the project
The background to the project lay in the changes promoted in university design courses by the influx into the sector of unprecedented numbers of students. Local challenges were presented to course teams at London College of Fashion by this situation and by a simultaneously experienced cut in teaching contact hours. The decrease in available teaching hours was a result of
restructuring and the introduction of Foundation degrees. The course tutors involved were committed to supporting students by enabling them to develop independent learning strategies within an blended learning environment. In this they also protected the good practice for which they had been recognized by the awarding of funding for a Centre for Excellence in Teaching Learning (CETL) in the field of Creative Learning in Practice (CLIP).
Course tutor Polly Kenny had a number of broad aims in mind in developing a blended learning resource for her subject area of ‘textiles for fashion’. These included:
• Coping with widening participation and attendant increases in student numbers and student diversity
• Bridging into study for learners for whom access provision, now no longer available, might have been the most appropriate route in the past
• Securing optimum learning opportunities against a background of shorter courses and decreased contact time
• Preserving the practical, tactile nature of textiles learning as well as the critical reflection that is integral to practice
• Securing textiles subject knowledge and guarding against dilution of this specialist resource
Methods employed
The course tutor, Polly Kenny, investigated a range of literature that offered insights into how she could develop experimental learning solutions using ICT (Draper, 1997; Davis, 1993; Rowntree, 1992; Laurillard, 1993; White, 1999). This enabled her to consider theories about how learning takes place, different learning styles that students might bring to their activities and the potential of open and distance learning. She was able to use these ideas to inform both the design and
structure of an e-learning resource. In particular, Laurillard’s ideas about a conversational model of learning were used to ensure that the design of the resource recognized significant characteristics of a positive model of learning and teaching; these included discursiveness, adaptivity, interactivity and reflectivity. The resource was piloted with existing students in the course of pre-planned learning activities in textile practice and evaluation undertaken in the course of the project.
Development of a blended learning resource
The resource was intended to provide students with selected examples that promote an
historical and modern references and examples, thereby encouraging experimentation at an early stage. Through blended learning activities students can also create their own links to cultural studies and contextual theory.
The structure of the resource was on four levels: core knowledge, exemplars, constraining factors and supporting materials. The core knowledge allowed the student to gain knowledge of the principals of fashion embroidery design and the fundamentals of the techniques and processes involved. Exemplars, both contemporary and historic, developed understanding of the principals of design and encouraged the student to put knowledge into practice. Consideration of the constraints on the use of fashion embroidery developed an understanding of economic and technological factors, suitability to purpose and the aesthetic affect of the design in context. The supporting material provided information to help more in depth study and individual focus.
Home page showing the 5 sections of the resource
The resource consisted of five sections, Manipulating, Adding, Subtracting, Constructing and Embellishing. These are all action verbs or ‘doing words’ and form an appropriate metaphor for its ‘constructivist’ structure; they are also actions that affect the fabric in some way and that can be used to embrace most embroidery techniques.
Project aims and evaluation
Initially this project was developed as a supplementary resource to support independent learning and face-to-face workshops. Learning outcomes for the resource were identified as aiding development of :
• a familiarity with the concepts and methods of embroidery • understanding of key terminology applicable to embroidery • the confidence to improve embroidery through practice
• understanding of the part played by fashion embroidery in the fashion design process • an understanding of the uses of embroidery by fashion designers
Laurillard’s work (op. cit.) was also significant in establishing more generic aims for this blended learning resource. These included the precepts that it should be:
• Adaptive in that it uses feedback on students’ performance to determine subsequent learning tasks
• Interactive by allowing change within the programme as a result of student action • Reflective in how it encourages students to reflect on what they have achieved.
With this perspective in mind, critical review of the resource was conducted at various intervals, and its advantages and disadvantages considered. Laurillard, who was a main source of ideas about elearning, is critical of multimedia resources where they are not truly interactive (if the computer does not adapt its programme in response to student feedback) unless combined with other media to fulfil all the criteria for learning. It was felt that the resource had met this aim, as attention to its use in context had been a primary consideration. Interaction with the learning materials had been ensured by building the use of the resource into the scheme of course work, creating close links to learning outcomes. It had also been integrated into the University’s existing virtual learning environment and communication tools.
Technology use, conduct and findings of the project
A stated aim of the University of the Arts London is to focus on blended learning rather than wholly online provision. The University’s IT Research & Development Unit (ITRDU) has led the way in providing training and pedagogical advice as well as technical enhancements and has encouraged institutional level change in teaching practice, particularly in practice based visual disciplines (Dickerson & Kennedy 2005). The unit’s assistance was important in running this project, and the tools that were used included an image board that allowed for integration of images with threaded discussions. Image thumbnails were displayed alongside text discussions, allowing students to have text and images in direct proximity to each other. Image board was also used to allow
students to document the stages and processes in the creation of a piece of work and to then invite online comments from peers; these process records were also presented for critique assessments and students were also asked to use the resource to create a reflective journal.
CLIP CETL funding has allowed a technology rich learning space to be created within the institute’s textiles area. By working in consultation with industrial contacts the CLIP CETL video and media specialist has been able to develop a camera that works as a document camera but that also that is capable of being freely manoeuvred to demonstrate detailed practical work wirelessly to large groups of students. Importantly it has the capability of recording the image for use on VLE so adding to our blended learning resources.
Research into the use of IT in learning and teaching identifies the importance of evaluation. (Draper, 1966; Fry et al., 1999), and it was regarded as crucial to allow time during and after the project for modifications suggested by user feedback. Two evaluation methods were combined to give evaluative feedback, with observation by the tutor and open-ended questions allowing
problems to be detected; these were then tested further by using fixed response questionnaires. It was seen as important to gain feedback from the actual classes that the software was designed for, as emphasised by Draper (1966). This required that feedback be collected across two academic years to allow comparison across the Foundation Degree two-year cohort. The
evaluation was successfully carried out and has informed both the modification and development of the resource.
Feedback from the students using the new resource was generally very positive. These students had identified through individual and group tutorials throughout the year a number of issues of concern to them: these included the impact of reduction in contact time during the course; the increasingly pressurised nature of taught workshop time; the necessity to work independently in open access situations both at college and at home. Feedback revealed that students found the blended learning resource helped them to manage these challenges. They felt that it was useful for the subject area and that it assisted independent learning, allowing them to develop greater
